Second soda tax proposal unveiled in San Francisco

The beverage industry may not agree, but San Francisco supervisors think so: On Monday, three weeks after Supervisor Scott Wiener unveiled a proposal for a 2-cents-per-ounce sugary beverage tax, Supervisor Eric Mar stepped up to a podium to announce his own tax — and standing next to him was Wiener.

Mar, along with supervisors Malia Cohen and John Avalos, has been working on a soda tax proposal with public health advocates for the past year and said Monday they wanted to put the legislation they have been crafting forward. The two proposals, however, are remarkably similar: Both target sugary-drink distributors, both impose a 2-cents per ounce tax, and both would use the estimated $30 million a year for health and nutrition programs to fight diabetes and other health issues associated with sodas, energy drinks and other sugary drinks.

And ultimately, the supervisors said, they plan on putting just one measure before voters.

Where the supervisors diverge is exactly how the money would be spent. Wiener has proposed giving one third to the school district, one third to the Recreation and Park Department, and one third to the Department of Public Health. Mar is focused on making sure those most impacted by health issues associated with sugary beverages — namely, low-income and communities of color — get the lions’ share of the funding. He wants to see about half of it go to the school district, to be evenly divided among nutrition and physical education programs in city schools, and the other half to various city agencies and community groups that target those who are affected.

Over the coming months, Mar said, all four supervisors will work together to boil both proposals down into one piece of legislation they plan to put before city voters next November. He and Wiener repeatedly stressed Monday how similar their legislation already is.

“Our approach is to build unanimous support at the Board of Supervisors,” Mar said, calling the upcoming campaign a “David and Goliath battle,” with the beverage industry. “We are building a coalition to win.”

The industry, in fact, has already won numerous fights over soda taxes, including in Richmond last year, where the American Beverage Association vastly outspent opponents. Wiener vowed that the same situation won’t play out in San Francisco, saying he and others plan to run a well-financed campaign that will resonate with city voters.

“The unity we are showing today is absolutely critical,” said Wiener. “We know what the beverage industry is capable of — we’ve seen them, over and over again, coming into cities with their unlimited resources and spread misinformation, to somehow say that sugary beverages are not the cause of a health epidemic including diabetes. Basically, they try to drown out science and community voices. We’ve seen them do it over and over again, and we are not going to let them do it here.”

The Beverage Association is ready to fight back. In a written statement, Californians for Food and Beverage Choice — a group created by the association — noted that elsewhere, such taxes “have been soundly rejected by voters each time they have been proposed.”

“Regressive beverage taxes that raise the cost of living for consumers and hurt local businesses are no way to improve community health,” the statement read. “Fortunately, across the country, there is evidence that the prevalence of obesity may have peaked, and progress is being made through collaborative measures to provide nutrition education, opportunities for physical activity and delivering diverse beverages choices that fit a healthy lifestyle.”